That response is a rather transparent retreat. When your list of supposedly devastating examples of failed climate science was challenged point by point, you abandoned the argument completely and switched to “we'll both find out eventually,” “I'm not losing sleep,” China and India, taxes, and fearmongering. In other words, you cannot defend the evidence you originally presented, so you have changed the subject. Nobody is claiming that you should lose sleep, run around screaming, or believe that we are about to start eating babies. That is a childish caricature invented because it is easier to argue against than what was actually said. Was your compilation a valid argument against climate science? It wasn't. You lumped together population catastrophism, isolated predictions, media headlines, political statements, conditional scenarios and actual scientific projections, then pretended that errors in any of them somehow invalidate the physical evidence for anthropogenic warming. Your accompanying images are no better. A headline saying “1,100 eminent scientists declare there is no climate emergency” is not scientific evidence; it is an appeal to a petition, and “eminent” is apparently supposed to do the intellectual work that examining the signatories' relevant expertise, the wording of the declaration and the actual scientific literature would otherwise require. The graph showing climate-related deaths declining from the 1920s is even more obviously irrelevant to the argument you think you are making. Of course mortality has fallen enormously over the last century: wealth, sanitation, medicine, infrastructure, forecasting, disaster preparedness and the ability to protect populations from extreme weather have all improved dramatically. That does not demonstrate that the climate has not changed. It demonstrates that human societies have become better at preventing people from dying when exposed to environmental hazards. By that logic, falling deaths from infectious diseases would prove that viruses do not exist. A certain loon on the forum might enjoy that in his padded cell. And posting a video of Alex Antic criticising climate policy, amplified by an influencer account, contributes precisely nothing to the scientific question. A politician expressing an opinion is not evidence that atmospheric physics has been overturned. If you believe otherwise, presumably a politician making a speech in favour of climate action would constitute scientific proof that you are wrong. In fact, there is an additional irony here. Alex Antic was among those publicly promoting the same World Climate Declaration behind your “1,100 eminent scientists” headline. So your supposedly separate pieces of evidence are not independent confirmation arriving from different directions. You have a declaration produced by a campaigning organisation, a politician promoting that declaration, and social-media accounts redistributing the politician's message. That is an echo chamber, not corroboration. Then there is the inevitable “China and India are laughing all the way to the bank” diversion. Fine: that is an argument about economic and industrial policy, not evidence against climate change. You are perfectly entitled to argue that Western governments are pursuing inefficient, excessively expensive or self-defeating climate policies. You can argue about carbon taxes, subsidies, energy security, deindustrialisation, nuclear power, Chinese manufacturing advantages and whether particular net-zero policies represent good value. Those are legitimate arguments. But they are completely separate from the question of whether greenhouse gases warm the planet and whether the observed warming, rising ocean heat content, rising sea levels and Arctic sea-ice decline are occurring. In fact, your latest response neatly illustrates the problem with your original post. You started by presenting yourself as though you had assembled a serious evidential case against climate science. The moment that case was examined, you retreated into vague rhetoric: we'll see, I'm not worried, China, taxes, fearmongering. None of which answers a single substantive criticism. Your “1,100 scientists” image is an advocacy declaration presented as though it were a scientific result. Your mortality graph confuses declining vulnerability with the absence of climatic change. Your Alex Antic video is a politician expressing a political opinion, redistributed by an influencer, and in this case linked to promotion of the very same declaration you are already presenting as independent evidence. So, rather than three independent sources converging on the same conclusion, what you have actually posted is a campaign declaration, a context-free infographic and a politician's opinion being amplified through social media. That is precisely the problem I accused you of in the first place: you are collecting things that look persuasive to someone who already agrees with you, rather than examining what each item actually establishes. A headline is not a scientific paper. A petition is not a meta-analysis. A declining death graph is not evidence that greenhouse gases do not warm the atmosphere. And a politician's video reposted by an influencer is not a substitute for evidence at all. If you want to debate climate policy, then let's debate climate policy. Nuclear versus renewables. Carbon pricing. Deindustrialisation. Energy security. The distribution of costs between developed and developing countries. Whether particular net-zero targets are realistic or economically sensible. Those are serious arguments. But if you want to claim that climate science itself has been debunked, you will need something substantially better than “1,100 eminent scientists,” a graph with no proper context, and Alex Antic on a social-media video.
